*1 Salem WORKERS UNION, MINE UNITED INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, et al. v. OF COMPANY, al. et COAL CLINCHFIELD 0904-89-3, 0790-89-3, Nos. 1333-89-3, 1287-89-3, 1629-89-3, 1743-89-3 26, 1991 March Decided *2 Counsel Haviland; Jr.; (James
Andrew Miller M. J. Vergara, James Jr.; Shults; Jr.; Robert H. O. A. William John Stropp, Gibney, Passino; Dickstein, Morin; Michael J. & Shapiro McIntyre, Jordan; Associates; Haviland Vergara & & General Counsel Union, America; Shuford, International United Mine Workers of Rubin, Dunn; Hildebrand, & Passino & on for Gibney briefs), appellants.
(Karl Massie; K. Kindig; Stephen Hodges; M. Wade W. Clinch- Penn, Stuart, Jones, field Coal Eskridge briefs), & on Company; for appellees. Poff; Morse;
(William Friedman; B. Clinton S. Frank K. C. Agnis Woods, L. Chakravoty; Rogers Hazlegrove, & Counsel for John Bagwell, on Brief Special Commissioner), Amicus Curiae. Opinion
KOONTZ, C.J.This arises from appeal a series judgments and corresponding exceeding twenty million dol lars entered by Circuit Court Russell County against International Union and the Local of the District Union United Mine re (Unions), Workers America at the appellants, “B” quest Clinchfield Coal and Mining Sea Com Company follow, pany For the va (Companies), appellees. reasons that we cate the by circuit court. Background Factual
I. only We summarize is voluminous. in this case The record opinion. of this for purposes essential facts 1989, against a strike commenced the Unions On April practices unlawful labor of alleged in protest Companies 12, 1989, filed a the Companies April response, Companies. the Unions alleging in the circuit bill of complaint Virginia’s right violating with them concert acting others prohibit sought injunction an The Companies to work law. 13, 1989, injunction issued an circuit court On April conduct. certain strike- guidelines prohibited picketing and established devices. As activities, of tire puncturing as the use related such continued, injunction court modified the circuit the strike rights Companies’ violations prevent an effort to work law. right Virginia’s involving vio- numerous acts injunction,
Notwithstanding as mas- non-violence, fairly described only which can lence and *3 As a sive, injunction. in violation of the that were were reported the result, against show cause rules to the circuit court entered 16, 1989, on hearing, May first cause held Unions. At the show violations of seventy-two separate found there had been the court hearing in the and findings May on its injunction. Based the court being indicating proof applied, the standard without in and contempt 18 found the Unions order entered on May $616,000. suspended The court totalling fines them on imposed the un- $400,000 paying on the Unions’ of these fines conditioned with thereafter complying ten and days within suspended portion to the Common- directed to be paid The fines were injunction. for future fine schedule also set a prospective wealth. The court in would result violations violations injunction whereby peaceful result in $20,000 would fines and violent violations “civil” $100,000 “civil” fines. 2, 1989, from was held on June hearing
A second contempt in the Unions adjudicating entered a second order which the court continued to that the Unions had findings Based on its contempt. fine set previously in accordance with its injunction violate the from its schedule, May the court reinstated the suspended $2,465,000, to the payable a total of order and fined the Unions order, evidence stated that “the Commonwealth. In its the court reasonable doubt that have proves beyond a inten- Unions] [the However, declared, tionally injunction. violated” the court also is the intention these civil court’s that fines are and coer- “[i]t order, cive.” the same the court set new fine forth a schedule “for the of coercing the defendants to with the purpose comply injunctions.” court’s 1989, 27,
On entered July court a third order wherein the court found that the Unions violated repeatedly injunction acts, violent through including and non-violent the fail- to ure use all lawful means ensure During to compliance. entered, hearing which this order was court de- again clared the standard to the evidence was proof applied “beyond doubt,” a reasonable but that it an doing was so “out of explained schedule, abundance of caution.” Without to its new fine adhering $4,465,000, the court on the Unions totalling paya- Commonwealth, ble to the Russell and Dickenson County, County. 16, 1989, hearing August a held on Subsequently, court informed the Unions had they right no to a trial jury because not they were tried for criminal being and that “these were civil proceedings.” 1989,
On August the Companies filed their seventh motion cause, for rule to show which moved the for a rule show court cause why Unions should not be held in criminal con- tempt and for “such other relief the court deems appropriate.” After issuing a rule to show cause for the holding hearing rule, the court entered fourth contempt order which it found beyond a doubt reasonable Unions continued had to vio- late the injunction. The court the Unions fines total- million, $16.9 ling $13.5 of which million made payable Commonwealth, Russell County, Dickenson County. $3.4 remaining million were directed paid Companies, even though the did not Companies present to evi- any dence of pecuniary losses.
In a 9, 1989, fifth contempt order entered on October the court found the Unions guilty reasonable doubt of 71 beyond viola- million, $6.9 tions of the injunction and fined them to the payable Commonwealth, Russell County, County. Dickenson Once again, the court the apparently considering fines without any evidence of losses. In a held on pecuniary hearing the same day, the court reiterated its that the were position proceedings criminal, means monetary it using that was than civil rather injunction. with the into compliance to the Unions coerce II. Background Procedural Court, the Unions to this appeal the Following timely Unions’ other in to numerous is- addition asserting, initial brief filed their in criminal sanctions sues, in question the fines guar- in of certain constitutional violation a civil proceeding the fines on brief asserted that the response, Companies antees. In Prior to oral properly imposed. civil fines and were were coercive brief, the in of positions in this Court their argument support litigation. joint By strike and this underlying settled the parties 29, 1990, the circuit moved January parties dated motion pend- dissolution of the an order entry contemplating court for of fines, issue in including those at ing vacation all injunctions, litigation. and dismissal of the this appeal, Thereafter, Unions, in with the with the agreement accordance Lieu filed in this Court a Statement Position Companies to The therein ac Companies of Brief and Motion Withdraw. settlement the strike and knowledged litigation, sup fines, and no the vacation of the because ported they “[could] in this appeal” requested function as an longer adversary filed as this The Unions their appeal. be dismissed they which, in their original position brief without reply abandoning sanctions, fines that based on they that the were criminal asserted moot, as this should be dismissed parties’ appeal vacated, involved in this be appeal with directions that fines agreement.1 contemplated by parties’ held argument Oral was in this Court on October 1990. The Thereafter, in took no this and before a Companies part hearing. Court, was L. Special decision reached this John Bagwell, circuit to collect Commissioner previously appointed Unions, this Court imposed against petitioned or in the to be per- made these alternative party proceedings to file We denied request mitted a brief amicus curiae. to be made a but of the amicus Bagwell party, permitted filing request joint acknowledged has On brief is now that the trial court denied the payable counties. vacate the fines to the Commonwealth and Russell and Dickenson accept acknowledgement only payable Companies have vacated. We been background purpose clarity procedural for the in the of this case. *5 128 timely
curiae brief. Unions filed brief. reply
III. The Issues Initially, we were called to decide whether the in- volved in appeal were criminal or civil sanctions for violation of the circuit court’s The distinction injunction. between criminal and civil has subject sanctions been matter of many various opinions from state federal courts and is a in- matter volving the difficult of well-settled We application rules. draw this Union, distinction and these rules in apply International United 135, Mine v. 12 Workers Covenant Coal Va. 402 Corp., App. date, S.E.2d (1991), 906 decided this which involves litigation from the arising same labor involved in this dispute appeal. How- ever, in this it is not or appeal for us to necessary, appropriate, determine whether the fines in are question criminal or civil be- cause the result would the same If be under the view we adopt. determined criminal fines in a civil improperly pro- ceeding without the necessary constitutional the fines protections, Steelworkers, could not stand. United Local 8417 v. Newport Co., News Dry& Dock 220 Shipbuilding Va. 260 S.E.2d here, 222 for (1979). of our we Accordingly, purposes decision assume, without these fines civil deciding, are sanctions. The dis- then positive issue becomes whether the the dispute and litigation between the civil that the fines im- requires posed as a must be part injunction suit set aside. We turn now to address that issue.
IV. Discussion
First,
The amicus brief brings this issue into focus.
it is as
serted, and we agree,
civil contempt
be subdi
may
vided into two sub-categories.
Compensatory
contempt sanc
tions, as
name
suggests, compensate
for losses
plaintiff
sustained because of the defendant’s
or disobedi
non-compliance
sanctions,
ence
a court’s order. Coercive civil
again
the name
are
suggests,
coerce a defendant
into com
with
plying
the orders of
court. See
v.
generally United States
Workers,
United
(1947);
Mine
[C]ompensatory payment through seeking compensate complainant disobedience. caused acts of damages by past for money sanctions, contrast, and are look to the future Coercive a defiant into by bringing party designed to aid plaintiff that a assuring order poten- with the court compliance injunction by setting adheres to an contumacious tially party *6 court will the impose the penalties in advance the if forth .... the obedience path deviates party from of for past a fine of a amount may specified court levy [T]he conditioned, however, injunction, refusal to conform to the may to The court obey. the continued on failure defendant’s will a be fined certain also that disobedient specify party Indeed, the methods non-compliance. amount for each of day into to a recalcitrant party that coerce may employed many with an are and varied. compliance injunction omitted). added) (footnotes Id. at 1344 (emphasis fines, circuit With the unsuspended of the initial exception coercive, recog- of conditional fines type clearly imposed between distinguishing compen- nized in Latrobe. For purposes sanctions, un- we need not consider the and coercive civil satory fines which have obvious indications criminal suspended of the Nor need we con- sanctions for violations court’s order. past set did adhere to its previously sider fact that the court not draw- order for the contempt purpose fine schedule the third fines. and coercive civil ing compensatory distinction between resulting no from The evidence of losses Companies presented order. Without such injunctive Unions’ disobedience of the court’s evidence, seek impose the circuit court could not and did not Moreover, case fines. voluminous record this compensatory co- that fines in question makes clear the court erce with its orders rather than to compensate compliance which reflect the A review of the facts in the record Companies. resulting of the and the magnitude impact violations involved at of the well as the communities operations Companies, as court, us, as the circuit large, persuade apparently they persuaded magnitude reasonably that fines of required considerable we conclude coerce from the Unions. compliance Consequently, fines, fines were not compensatory these coercive civil fines.
The distinction between the two of civil sub-categories for is relevant to the of the contempt disposition ultimate issue in Neither nor amicus appeal. curiae dispute compensatory fines should be vacated litigation between the What is is whether parties. disputed coer- cive civil or fines should also be vacated left to the discretion of the trial court to be vacated in or in whole part. sanctions,
The Unions contend that all civil whether coercive, compensatory imposed during proceedings prior must be vacated when the in which litigation they were is settled The rely Unions on the parties. primarily seminal case for this Gompers position. amicus brief asserts that coercive civil have the dual purpose coercing compliance with the court’s orders and of vindicating the court’s This authority. latter forms the basis for the purpose further as- sertion that the trial court has the discretion to refuse to vacate or to modify the amount of the sanctions if the court determines that maintaining the fines would vindicate the of the court authority where, here, even the parties move to or mod- jointly vacate ify sanctions. While that in recognizing the context of vindi- *7 cating the of the authority court such civil fines are similar to fines, criminal which survive the settlement of the liti- underlying gation, the amicus brief asserts that the civil nature of con- is not turned tempt criminal the court’s by efforts at self-vindica- tion. See Wendy, United States v. F.2d 575 1029 (2d n.13 1978). Cir.
In of the support assertion that does not Gompers mandate that fines, all civil contempt coercive, whether be va- compensatory cated upon settlement of the underlying litigation, amicus brief cites us to the recent decision of Clark v. Interna- Union, Workers, tional United (W.D. Mine 752 F. Supp. Va. 1990), which arose from the same labor involved dispute in Clark, the present In appeal. after determining that the prospec- fines, tive fines imposed the unions upon were civil coercive court refused to vacate these fines upon settlement of the un- labor derlying and civil dispute litigation. The district court deter- mined that does not Gompers apply to civil im- contempt fines posed in a completed proceeding prior to settlement of the underlying view, dispute. in its Apparently, in holding Gompers only establishes in that cases in which a court imposes dis- the underlying followed settlement by criminal in may place take contempt proceedings remand for civil no pute, case. with the connection Cir. (6th F.2d 110 Corp., Wear States v. Work
United court for this posi- the district is relied 1979), primarily De- Wear, Justice the Anti-Trust Division In Work tion. which led a settle- Work Wear brought against a suit partment itself certain Wear to divest Work ment that required the deadline specified this did not occur within subsidiaries. When order, civil contempt obtained government in the Court’s did be- not occur Work Wear for each the divestiture against day one over these fines amounted to the deadline. yond Eventually, to a reduction ultimately agreed dollars. The parties million fol- Court of these fines but the refused one-half approximately that Circuit agreement. upheld low this Sixth Upon appeal, discre- not abused its on the basis that lower court had refusal not of the fines was refusing tion in to reduce the fines. Mootness nevertheless, found, by implica- Court discussed. Clark tion stands for the that cessation proposition Work Wear not moot the coercive obligation act does contemptuous pay of the contemptuous before the end conduct. Clark, Work and the response,
In the Unions assert that Wear in several distinguishable other cases relied on Clark are on First, grounds. underly- the Unions assert that Work Wear the addition, In assert ing totally was not settled. Unions dispute ground they that these cases can be distinguished brought by governmental rights to vindicate agencies public cases review a to ensure that such the courts should their those too numerous and ill-informed protects protect contrast, own interests. involves private case present only to civil litigation which has been settled. fully *8 We need the The Clark not address merit of these distinctions. of expresses Court an rationale in its determina- eloquent support the the ef- argument tion that Unions’ mootness would undermine civil enforce of sanctions and a court’s to ficacy contempt power its not with by disagree orders the use of such sanctions. We do sentiment rationale. the inherent the Clark Court’s believe, however,
We
that while we must follow federal law in
our
a
determination of whether
is
particular
sanction
criminal
civil
determining
or
for
of
the
purposes
proper applica
Feiock,
of
tion
federal constitutional
Hicks v.
protections,
624,
U.S.
630 (1988), the issue whether civil contempt sanctions
are
by
mooted
settlements
to the
subsequent
by
private parties
litigation
of
is matter
state law. While our
Court has
Supreme
issue,
not had
opportunity
address this
we
particular
believe
333B,
Commonwealth,
Local
United Marine Division v.
193 Va.
773,
159,
denied,
(1952),
S.E.2d
cert.
In Local Court approved procedure transfer- ring a criminal contempt proceeding from side to equity law side of the changing style of the case to re- flect that the Commonwealth plaintiff had intervened party the Union for prosecute criminal This is con- contempt. approach sistent with the well recognized principle criminal contempt is a matter between the government and the contemnor and the sentence imposed is in the punitive and interest since is public imposed to the authority vindicate of the court deter way of example others who would violate court orders. Steel- workers, the Court prohibited criminal imposition in a civil proceeding denied a for a request subsequent pro- ceeding to secure compensatory sanctions for the plaintiff. Implicit view, in these holdings, in our is the that our requirement courts should follow designed procedures to inform the parties the true nature of proceedings, while preserving power the courts to vindicate their authority. The view which we is adopt also consistent with glean we principles from the States United Supreme Court cases. *9 relief have cases, aspects criminal civil and both
In contempt or both: when or remedial punitive as either can be seen contemnor, is on a fines and punishments imposes a court the initial to enter legal authority its vindicating not only to the law’s order, effect seeking give but it is also to conform behavior the contemnor’s modifying of purpose in the order. the terms required
Hicks, 485 at 635. U.S. intended to case, civil fines were the coercive
In the present or injunctive court’s with the compliance into coerce the Unions necessarily These fines also of the Companies. der for the benefit vindicating authority effect of and purpose had the incidental sanctions coercive civil In this all respect, of the court. view, court. In our authority to some degree vindicate to coerce however, a civil sanction mere fact that not require does authority also vindicates a court’s compliance such to refuse vacate in the court that we maintain discretion litigation and dispute of the underlying authority, Vindication of the court’s parties. between the private sanctions, re criminal contempt acknowledged purpose with conducted criminal by contempt proceedings mains available contemnor. “When for the protections constitutional appropriate settled, was dependent which the main case is every proceeding course, settled, it, it, without was also necessarily or a part for con of the court to right punish to the prejudice power at 451. U.S. proceedings.” Gompers, tempt by proper of the viola magnitude we recognize while summary, con the justifiable order in this case and tions of the trial court’s order, we hold that with its compliance cern the court had with a civil proceed as a during part litiga underlying settled when the between are ing private parties discretion to the court is without tion settled is though even such This result follows refuse to vacate such fines. the court’s vindicating purpose serve the incidental may vindicated may in such cases authority The court’s authority. the Commonwealth between criminal subsequent proceedings pro constitutional with appropriate and the contemnor conducted contemnor. tections afforded to the
Accordingly, fines now pending in this are moot appeal we remand this case to the trial court with directions to vacate these fines in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. Cole, J., concurred.
Baker, J., dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the finding of the majority *10 case and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.